722.2315/923
The Minister in Ecuador ( Gonzalez ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 19.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 342 of April 28, 1936,9 concerning recent developments in the Ecuadorean-Peruvian boundary dispute, I have the honor to report that no decision appears to have been taken concerning any change in the policy heretofore followed by the Government with respect to this problem. I availed myself of an opportunity this afternoon to inquire of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as to the outcome of his recent conversations on this subject with Minister Viteri from Lima and Minister Alfaro from Washington. He stated quite frankly that no definite decision had been reached, except that Ecuador now is disposed, and it has so indicated to Peru, to go to Washington and, before initiating negotiations for a direct settlement of the controversy, to define the character of the arbitration on those points where a direct settlement is not feasible.
The Minister was not very convincing in his statements. It was apparent that he feels that Peru does not want to go through with a settlement at this time. He seemed to be convinced that should representatives of Ecuador even go to Lima, no less Washington, for the express purpose of defining the character of the arbitration, Peru would find some pretext to delay indefinitely the next step of constituting its delegation in Washington. He then stated that Ecuador would be willing to define the nature of the arbitration even at Lima, provided that it obtained sufficient assurances that the matter would not rest at that point.
The Minister expressed the belief that nothing will be done in the boundary question until after the forthcoming Peace Conference in Buenos Aires. He entertains a forlorn hope that in some way the controversy will come up for discussion in the Peace Conference and that Ecuador will then be afforded an opportunity to set forth its point of view. He added that such a development would undoubtedly contribute to a prompt removal of the discussions to Washington.
It is my opinion that the Ecuadorean Government is convinced that Peru, on the eve of the presidential elections, is neither willing nor able to proceed with a discussion of the controversy. In view of this circumstance the Ecuadorean Government considers that nothing can be gained by any attempt upon its part at this time to conciliate the views of Peru in the matter of defining the character of the arbitration. It may be that Ecuador has indicated to Peru its willingness to define the arbitration in Washington before proceeding with direct negotiations [Page 112] and its agreement to a de jure arbitration. However, I cannot escape the fear that this information, if it were communicated, has been done without any commitment.
Respectfully yours,
- Not printed.↩